- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:25:06 -0500
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, www-tag@w3.org
On Jun 5, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > One probably tangential query: [1] says > > "The extension graph, if provided, must be true under the semantic > conditions of the extension." > Perhaps this would have been better phrased as "If an extension graph is provided, it is treated as a partial axiomatization of the extension, so that all its triples are assumed to be true in all interpretations which conform to the extension." > This seems an odd constraint, if I read it correctly. By construction > the reserved IRIs of an extension will all be _mentioned_ in its > extension graph. But it seems unlikely that they will be _used_ in it > in most cases. ? They will be used in that graph. How does one mention an IRI in RDF without using it? RDF has no quoting machinery for mentioning without use. THe use may be trivial, of course: you can say effectively nothing by simply asserting that everything is an rdfs:Resource. > And if any of them are, why does "eat your own > cooking" need to be the case, as the above quote requires? The idea is that the graph amounts to a formalization of the intended meaning, at least partially. Does that make sense? Pat > > ht > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/AnotherSpin > -- > Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh > 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 > Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk > URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ > [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam] > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 17:25:46 UTC